Reinventing workforce housing

Last week, after Works Partnership’s design for a new workforce housing project won an AIA Design Award (in the Unbuilt category), I sat down with firm principals Bill Neburka and Carrie Schilling and the project’s developers, Randy Rapaport and Steve Van Eck, to talk about the project.

The building, which is officially still unnamed but may (if Rapaport has his way) be called the Mark Rothko Apartments (after the legendary painter who grew up here), has a dynamic program. Situated at Northeast 2nd and Multnomah, between the Rose Quarter and Martin Luther King Boulevard, it’s actually designed like two buildings, with one half cantilevered over the other. In between, on what is called the transfer floor, is a greenspace and community room.

“It’s interesting as a conceptual idea, a new direction for urban housing,” Neburka says.

“Three nuts got cracked, I think,” Schilling adds. “It’s the idea of doing a core study to find the most efficient plan possible on a quarter block site. Portland has a lot of quarter blocks. Then there is the mandate of [last year’s city-sponsored] courtyard housing competition to draw families back to the urban core. But courtyard housing is actually a fairly low-density solution. We wanted to take that mandate and apply it to higher density development. Then it was the idea of creating two project mixes versus saying we’re going to do one thing. It allows two objectives to be met on the same site.”

The reason for having the equivalent of two different buildings in one was efficiency: It’s a kind of puzzle being able to build affordable housing units cheaply enough to meet budget strictures. Also, the architects and developer were trying to work creatively within a system where affordable housing subsidies are given out in a per-door basis. The two portions of the building allow a layout of the units that better maximizes space and, therefore, allows more of them to fit into the 10,000 square foot floorplate. The plan also seeks to mandate floor area ratio in order to maximize density.

“We didn’t want to say, ‘This is the way everybody does affordable housing.’ You put in the same elevator core and dumb down the finishes with cheap windows,” Neburka explains. “We thought there’s got to be an intrinsic way to get a more efficient solution. We had all these different configurations and took the one most efficient for big units and the most efficient for small units. It’s not re-inventing the wheel. All of the tools I’ve think we’ve all applied are all out there. Nobody looks at what resources are available. Transfer floors have been done all over the world. Then once you have that transfer floor, why not make it an open space?”

“Think of it as the lower neighborhood and the upper neighborhood divided by a park,” Rapaport adds.

Besides the striking form of two differently sized rectangular shapes stacked one onto the other, the design is notable for its façade, a series of concrete panels that resemble mid-century modern Brutalist design but divert from that rigid geometry as the panels gently bend and curve like reeds. This is not just an aesthetic move, but one rooted in the building’s program.

“The typical problem is you’ve got a big box of repetitive windows. In ours, it’s not an office building. It’s a living space,” Neburka explains. “You’ve got regular spaces, quiet spaces, active spaces. Let’s just allow that grid to inflect a little to replicate what’s going on inside. You’ve got bigger windows where there are more public spaces. It’s an idea of where the building quiets down and where it activates.”

The reed-like pattern of the concrete panels also helps activate the building’s façade, acting as a connecting thread between the top and bottom portions to create the visual sense of stretching, almost like a piece of chewing gum or toffee being pulled. “We thought, ‘Why don’t you take this traditional building and pull it apart?’” Neburka says. “What are the qualities that can be gained from that?”

If built, the project is poised to earn participation (and funds) from both Metro and the Portland Development Commission. Their interest comes from the fact that this is a high-density affordable and/or workforce housing development that’s family friendly with lots of three-bedroom units and ideally situated for accessing mass transit (there are 39 transit connections within 1,500 feet). In fact, the building team actually discovered that the site is a PDC-owned vacant lot and approached the agency with a plan to develop it.

Besides this meeting city-desired high-density and affordable housing goals, or bringing desperately needed housing to the Rose Quarter and Lloyd District, the building would also mark a new beginning for the city when it comes to sponsoring high-quality architecture by talented local firms. Too often in the past the Portland Development Commission has produced buildings of disappointing design quality, the result of a process favoring public process for its own sake over one geared to generate design excellence. I mean, have you seen the PDC developed project at Martin Luther King and Fremont, for example? It looks like a fusion of a lighthouse and a prison.

The Mark Rothko Apartments, on the other hand, would be a superlative project for both public and private leaders to get behind.

I am actually impressed with this idea, I am happy to hear that they actually took the initiative and went to the PDC to propose something on their land rather than sit around waiting for work to come their way.

At first my only real issue is that the facade didnt make any sense and that their description on their website sounded like architectural poetic garbage, but hearing the reasoning for it as a reflection of spaces more public and more private makes sense...of course there is a hundred different ways one could express this in the facade, but I do like the way they chose to express it.

I do hope to see this come to be a real building for the city. I think we have been moving in a good direction with actual quality architecture these recent years and it would be a mistake to let that go by the wayside.

The idea of an expansive, upper level outdoor space is great; a selling point to persuade people to live in towers. I'd love to read the structural engineers explanation of how the structural integrity of a building with that much cantilever supported weight can be viable. The outlying support columns don't appear to be very big.

Of course, the simpler, cheaper to build strongly design for an outdoor space incorporated into a building, would have the outdoor space on the roof of the building. Wouldn't be unconventional though.

If anybody in this city can pull this off, I'm sure these guys can. I think that elevated covered park/social space is very different than a roof garden (and not just because it is unconventional), and who knows, maybe it has one of those too.

Wow is right. This is top drawer design. Brian, I couldn't agree more that all too often the tendency to worship the public process for its own sake has in turn yielded some less than glorious results. Really hoping this project gets beyond the concept stage.

So far everybody on this blog appears to love this building. Sorry to disagree.

When was the last time we saw a tower with a vertical bands bent and buckling, a section of floors removed, and the top portion of the tower disjointed? 9-11! The association is uncanny, and disturbing. Not a visual reference we need to construct and live with in our city for generations to come.

The mid-story community space is a perfectly fine idea, which was lifted from the early works of Arquitectonica, which in turn may have been born of Corbu's Marseille Block. But to call refer to it as a courtyard is stretching it. A courtyard on the ground is a very different place that can be entered by the public directly form the adjoining street, which this building does not offer.

Sorry Laurence, I really dont see the 9/11 reference to it...or at least that wasnt the first thing that popped in my mind when I saw this...but I guess I was paying more attention how the top half transfers its weight to the bottom half, which looks fairly simple.

If I were at Works and had someone compare my building to something Rem Koolhaas would do, I would be impressed, even if it was an attempt to be an insult...You should see his building he did at IIT in Chicago, that is such an amazing Student Center building.

I like the spatial massing, and agree that the mid-level park idea is super Dutch looking in execution (though not specifically OMA). But I don't think I'm buying the conceptual reasoning for the vertical ribbons yet. Maybe it's that they're not quite variegated enough yet, that might just reflect the cost constraints though. It still just feels like a slight nudge away from 70s office tower. It would be nice to see how these undulations actually affect the interior spaces.

For an article supposedly about affordable housing, its sure short on any deals on what makes this concept affordable. Neat architectural sculpture, yes, but what makes it less expensive to build (and thus less expensive to rent) than a very efficient slab or midrise building? What is the building efficeincy? Net to gross? Skin area to livable area? Cost per foot? Cost per unit? Public subsidy per unit? Any details at all other than calling it "affordable"????? You can't just call somethign affordable and pretend that it is. Show me one quarter block building anywhere in the world that costs less per unit to build than the larger, efficient midrise buildings that everyone on this blog loves to hate. There is a reason why building look the way they do, and its not for lack of imagination by developers or architects. The reality of construction costs and financing requirements can't be solved by some clever renderings. Please tell us how this building get's built for anything close to an affordable rent (and don't exclude the massive public subsidy involved). Details please, details...

I agree it looks very much like the World Trade Center, which was never known as a well designed building other than being an engineering marvel. It also looks much like a clever re-model of the drab buildings depicted in the background of the renderings. The scheme seems like Standard Insurance or AIG should office there, rather than where a young family might have Thanksgiving.

Essentially, this concept has 2 big ideas: It is clad in wavy vertical bands and has a cut-out. Neither idea is groundbreaking enough to warrant the cost of complex glazing and the lateral resisting structure necessary for that intermediate outdoor space. Particularly, when public funds are at stake.

I am also not convinced that moving the outdoor space to the roof with a big cantilevered roof does not offer the same visual and spatial experience, but without the added structural complexity and cost.

I agree that the concrete panels do seem reminiscent of the World Trade Center. I actually made this point to Works Partnership when we met.

At the same time, I disagree with the idea that this resemblance is a hindrance to the project or should have been done differently. In fact, what better tribute to the legacy of 9/11 and the WTC than to build an affordable housing project?

Actually looking at the images, the structural complexity really isnt that complex. In the section it shows the placement of the piles, which you just have to follow the lines up to see how the weight of the building transfers. So this building falls well within the standards of cantilevering, and the facade really isnt the most important thing to this building, if they felt that it would have a negative effect, it could easily be changed.

Though I must say, I am more interested in the units this building would be providing and how they plan to keep the costs within an affordable range for people seeking a 3 bedroom unit within the building.

The idea of putting the community space in the middle of the building is probably the best idea about this building because often times it is either stuck somewhere near the base and always has a weird effect or put on the roof, which in Portland isnt the best place to be much of the year. This covered outdoor space could be used by its tenants more throughout the entire year.

I liken this exercise to the new RAC. It seems way overpriced for the affordable population it claims it will serve. At a direct construction cost of $321 a SF for the affordable component (as per HAP website) it is nearly double the cost PSF of a typical 5 over 1 building.

I have to imagine when one considers the structural gymnastics, non-repetitive skin elements and high rise cost premiums, that this project will be even more money than the RAC.

When one realizes that nearly twice as many units can be constructed in the 5 over 1 model for the cost of these projects one really has to consider the validity of this approach.

So please, if you have truly created a new economic model for affordable housing, show us the data to back up your statements. I can't help but be reminded of similar statements Frank Gehry made when he was approached to do an affordable block in the Pearl District and we all know how that turned out.

Uhhh, yeah, you're missing about a 100 stories for the WTC comparison. I do think it evokes the Standard Insurance Building, Well Fargo Building, and the Lloyd district towers. I'm generally not a fan of that look, but it depends what the vertical elements are made of. One of the renderings made them look like wood, which would do much to soften the look. The Standard Building has the most brutal look with the rough concrete grid. Very depressing in overcast Portland.

I think the mid-level common area is genius. I live in an 18 story building that has a patio on the 3rd floor. It's cool, but you feel the presence of the entire building looking down on you. I like the privacy of this space, as well as the interplay between some covering and some openness to the sky. It's good for plants to get some real Oregon rain.

Finally, we need dense living space that can accomodate moderate income levels. Thank you.